Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/9706/2026 of PRAKASH DHURVE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 12 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9706 of 2026 Prakash Dhurve S/o Subhash Dhurve Aged About 37 Years R/o Farid Nagar, Dera Basti, Ward No. 07, Bhilai Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh
CGHC010393082026
2026:CGHC:44161
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9706 of 2026
Prakash Dhurve S/o Subhash Dhurve Aged About 37 Years R/o Farid Nagar, Dera Basti, Ward No. 07, Bhilai Police Station - Supela, District - Durg
(C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer Supela, District - Durg (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Mugdha Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.10
.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 313/2026 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act.
2. Earlier, first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 6783 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 28.07.2026.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that acting on secret information that a person was illegally selling ganja behind the Government School at Farid Nagar, Dera Basti, Supela, the police apprehended the accused/applicant, who allegedly matched the description provided by the informer. Upon search, a white plastic bag allegedly containing 1 kilogram and 140 grams of ganja was recovered from his possession. Accordingly, aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only four have been examined. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.02.2026. She further submits that the applicant has four criminal antecedents and three cases are pending, therefore, on ground of delay, instant application may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. He would submit that applicant has three live criminal antecedents and his earlier bail application was rejected on this ground alone. It is further submitted that applicant has already been convicted in one criminal case. He would submit that instant application deserves to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of case, nature and gravity of the allegations, fact that there are three criminal antecedents of the present applicant of similar nature and he has already been convicted in one criminal case, applicant is in jail since 25.02.2026 and it cannot be held that applicant is languishing in jail since long. There is no change in circumstance warranting interference with earlier order.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant